BREAKING: Nnamdi Kanu Appeals High Court Ruling Which Denied Reinstatement Of His Bail
The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a notice of appeal against the judgment by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, which failed to grant Kanu’s application seeking restoration of his revoked bail and transfer/remand him to a safe place of custody.
Kanu, who has been in detention at the Department of State Service (DSS) custody in Abuja since June 2021, had filed an application seeking restoration of bail revoked by the court after he escaped from an attack in his home in Abia State by security personnel.
However, the court in a delivered on May 20 refused to grant Kanu’s application, though the Supreme Court had in a ruling held that the IPOB leader did not jump his bail as claimed by the trial court.
In the notice of appeal filed through his legal team led by Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu said that the trial court erred when “it misdirected itself on the facts and otherwise failed to properly evaluate the evidence when it wrongly held that ‘on the issue of the transfer of the Defendant/Applicant to another place of custody, I have found and held that the present place of custody of the Defendant is a proper place of custody’ and which decision led to a miscarriage of justice against him.”
Kanu said, “There is a world of difference between what is, by law and facts, considered a safe or proper place of custody, such that what is done (by the Respondent) to the Appellant and his Lawyers at the said current place of custody of the Appellant amounts to exposing the Appellant to a serious constitutional disadvantage as regards his right to fair trial in his ongoing trial.”
He further argued that the trial court erred in law when it refused to grant his application upon what he described as the implicit finding that the room at the said DSS detention facility whereupon he meets with his counsel is not a safe and “clean” room for him to prepare for his defence.
The IPOB leader also said “The trial court erred in law when the court failed to exercise its discretion in favour of the application of the Appellant and in that respect occasioned miscarriage of justice.”
The notice of appeal further said “The trial Court misdirected itself on the facts when the Court held that ‘having found that the defendant jumped bail, and had forfeited the surety’s bonds and discharged them from the bond and the sureties having gone on appeal on the same issues, I cannot take any steps until the outcome of the Appeal.’”
Kanu’s legal team in the notice stressed that amongst other issues, the issue of bail-jumping and revocation of his bail were considered by the Supreme Court in the case marked SC/CR/1361/2022: BETWEEN FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. NNAMDI KANU, where the apex court ruled, “The respondent was on bail and therefore in custody of the law when his home was illegally invaded by heavily armed military officers of the appellant, causing him to flee from his home and the country to secure his life. In the face of such an attack, it was reasonable for him to flee to secure his life and physical wellbeing.
“That is what any normal and reasonable human being would do in that circumstance to preserve his life and physical well-being. It is glaring that the consequences of that attack were intended or foreseeable.
“This is not arguable. The Appellant’s officials knew that the invasion of the respondent’s home caused him to run away to secure his life and physical well-being. Yet during proceedings in the pending criminal case against him, they applied that his bail be revoked, that a warrant for his arrest be issued and his sureties forfeit their respective bail bond and that his trial in his absence be ordered because he had jumped bail and is not in court to stand trial. But they knew that their illegal actions made it impossible for the respondent to be in court for his trial.
“In a situation such as this one, where the prosecution has taken extrajudicial actions against the defendant in a pending criminal case brought by it and made it impossible for the Defendant who Is on hail to be in court for his or her trial, it is wrong to treat such a defendant as having jumped bail in the sense that he is running from prosecution or running to avoid prosecution in the pending criminal case in respect of which he was granted bail.
“The respondent did not intentionally and knowingly fail to appear in court. It was therefore wrong and malicious for the appellant that had caused the respondent to flee from his home and country to secure his life and that had therefore caused his unavoidable absence from court, to inform and thereby deceive the trial court that the respondent had jumped bail.
“On the basis of this deception, the appellant applied to the trial court for an order revoking the respondent bail, forfeiting the amount securing the bail bond of his sureties and order issuing a bench warrant for his arrest. It is glaring Pram the record of proceedings.
“In the trial court that granted the said orders prayed for by the appellant with knowledge of the fact that the respondent’s absence from court was caused by the invasion of his home by army officers of the appellant.
“Therefore, the trial court knew that the said extra judicial and illegal actions of the appellant made it impossible for the respondent to be in court for his trial, that the respondent’s absence is not intentional or deliberate absent (sic) and that the respondent is not running from prosecution or running to avoid prosecution.
“In the light of the foregoing, the trial court acted unfairly and without rational and legally justifiable basis by its decisions revoking the respondent’s ball, forfeiting the amount securing the ball bond of his sureties and its order Suing a bench warrant for his arrest. The orders were made on the basis of the false assumption that the respondent jumped bail”.
Kanu therefore said he is seeking “An Order allowing this Appeal and setting aside the decision of the trial court made on the 20th day of May, 2024.
“An Order restoring/reinstating the bail of the Appellant on same terms as earlier granted; or an Order restoring/reinstating the Appellant’s bail on any new terms and conditions.
“An Order remanding the Appellant to an alternative place of custody or home detention/house arrest that can accord the Appellant the atmosphere to have a fair trial.
“Any Order the Honourable Court of Appeal deems fit to make in the circumstances of this Appeal.”
